delimit_sensor_github_issue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states side effects: 'read-only network call via gh CLI.' It also mentions defense-in-depth mechanisms: 'Validates repo format with regex' and 'Subject to the confused-deputy guard (_check_repo_allowlist) before fetching.' This level of detail is exceptional for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, sibling contrast, and side effects. It is concise, with every sentence providing valuable information. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral details, and parameter context. It mentions the return value implicitly ('structured signal for routing'). With the output schema available, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions validation behavior but not parameter-specific details. The schema itself is descriptive enough, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Check a GitHub issue for new comments since the last sensor tick.' It identifies the specific resource (GitHub issue) and verb (check for new comments). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like delimit_github_scan and delimit_resource_get, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over others.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to monitor a specific outreach / tracking issue for new activity.' It also provides clear exclusions: 'When NOT to use: for repo-wide scans (use delimit_github_scan) or one-shot fetch (delimit_resource_get).' This provides strong guidance on usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.